Howard Dean Slams Tea Party & GOP As Dangerous, Desperate, Religious Bigoted, Haters

[megimoo]

The Future Does Not Belong to White Christians Over 55: Howard Dean Slams Tea Party & GOP As Dangerous, Desperate, Religious Bigoted, Haters..


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-...igoted-haters/

Comments :
Americans have had enough of this insanity from these Marxists!
WE THE PEOPLE and our 14 mandates:

1. REPEAL ALL OF OBAMACARE AND ALL OF HIS\HER EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND APPOINTMENTS, CZARS, ETC.
(Conceived 2010, Aborted 2012 – that is an abortion we can support)

2. END THE FEDERAL RESERVE AS WE KNOW IT
(With BHO’s blessing, Bernanke is destroying our dollar. Born 1913, Died 2012)

3. RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTION
(Born 1776, Restored 2012)

4. RESTORE OUR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
(Justice is blind – and that includes color Mr. Holder)

5. SECURE OUR BORDERS AND NO AMNESTY.
(This will require some Homeland Security reforms as well)

6. BALANCE THE BUDGET WITHOUT RAISING TAXES, AND PAY DOWN ON OUR NATIONAL DEBT.
(Americans have to do this, and so must our government)

7. REJECT UN AGENDA 21 AT ALL LEVELS IN AMERICA, AND REINFORCE OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
(RED is the cost of freedom, and GREEN is the color being used by the UN NWO dictators to steal it. In fact, no agreement should be made with the UN that is in conflict with our constitution).

8. RESTORE CONGRESS
(Legislation MUST ALWAYS trump Regulation by ANY entity. Congress represents the people, not EPA).

9. END THE U.S. DEPT. OF EDUCATION
(We need to teach children how to think for themselves, not what to think, and that can be done at state and local levels – or at home. Tax money on the DoE. is a terrible thing to waste. Born 1980, Died 2012).

[MrsSmith]

It's funny how many of the "tolerant" party are so bigoted against Christians...

[Novaheart]

It's funny how many of the "tolerant" party are so bigoted against Christians...

What he was saying was that the future of America is not the exclusive property of the over 55 white Christian male, which is how he was characterizing the membership of the Tea Party. He was saying that the demographics of the nation are changing, and changing away from the demographics of the Tea Party.

So what part of that is incorrect?


Mind you , I don't like his tone. He's sounding rather Berkeleyish. I would also note, that since the black population of the US is also predicted to shrink in the same period of time, by 25% of representation, he could also have said that the future doesn't belong to over 55 black Christian people.

Now, if we take each of his classifications separately, then there is an error. While Anglo Saxons and Blacks are becoming less religious, the immigrant population is overwhelmingly devout Catholic.

[Apache]

What he was saying was that the future of America is not the exclusive property of the over 55 white Christian male, ...

Neither is the TEA Party...

[Novaheart]

Neither is the TEA Party...

Here are the demographics according to the NYT:

The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

Do you have other figures? The photos of this group which I have seen would not disprove the NYT claim.

[NJCardFan]

Here are the demographics according to the NYT:

The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

Do you have other figures? The photos of this group which I have seen would not disprove the NYT claim.

New York Times huh. Yeah. Now there's the bastion of centrism. They don't have an agenda, do they. Nooooooooo.

[lacarnut]

What he was saying was that the future of America is not the exclusive property of the over 55 white Christian male, which is how he was characterizing the membership of the Tea Party. He was saying that the demographics of the nation are changing, and changing away from the demographics of the Tea Party.

So what part of that is incorrect?

What part is correct coming from a mentally deranged left wing liberal.

[Lager]

What he was saying was that the future of America is not the exclusive property of the over 55 white Christian male, which is how he was characterizing the membership of the Tea Party. He was saying that the demographics of the nation are changing, and changing away from the demographics of the Tea Party.

So what part of that is incorrect?


Mind you , I don't like his tone. He's sounding rather Berkeleyish. I would also note, that since the black population of the US is also predicted to shrink in the same period of time, by 25% of representation, he could also have said that the future doesn't belong to over 55 black Christian people.

Now, if we take each of his classifications separately, then there is an error. While Anglo Saxons and Blacks are becoming less religious, the immigrant population is overwhelmingly devout Catholic.

When a group resorts to such hypebole and misrepresentation of another groups values and philosophy, it is usually the result of fear or desperation. It's very sad that a prominent member of the democratic party resorts to such defamation. And what hypocrisy to talk about scare tactics, when you sprinkle your speech with terms designed to push reactionary buttons in the very group you're trying to persuade. A party with such an honorable pedigree in our country's history, is now telling its members that anything coming from white male christians, or anything to do with christian values, shoud be automatically suspect. I laugh at how much the left talks down to, and insults the intelligence of its audiences. But then, I'm often surprised that their audience doesn't seem to catch on to the poorly disguised manipulation.

[Lager]

Here's a question: If the demographics of our country change, does that mean our values have to change? Are our values and principles only applicable to certain segments of society, or are they universal and time honored core beliefs that apply to all members of a free society?